Also, the quake on the east coast was much closer to the surface than most west coast quakes, which could account for the feeling.
Scott (not a geologist) On 8/23/11 6:13 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> A 5.8 (or 5.9, I've seen conflicting numbers) > Hi Owen, > > http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/se082311a.html#details > > Originally reported as 5.8. Briefly upped to 5.9. Now back to 5.8. > >> really isn't likely to do all >> that much damage, even on the East Coast.In California, anyone who >> has lived here for more than 10 years probably doesn't even feel >> anything less than a 5, and, it takes a solid 6 to really get anyone's >> attention out here. Natives mostly won't change their behavior for >> anything short of a 6.5. > Two points: > > A. Our structures aren't built to seismic zone standards. Our > construction workers aren't familiar with *how* to build to seismic > zone standards. We don't secure equipment inside our buildings to > seismic zone standards. > > B. The crust on the east coast is much more solid than on the west > coast, so the seismic waves propagate much further. Los Angeles > doesn't feel an earthquake north of San Francisco unless it's huge. > New York City felt this earthquake near Richmond VA. So yes, we're > seeing relatively minor damage... but we're seeing it over a much > wider area than someone in California would. > > Regards, > Bill > >
